PDA

View Full Version : Players Union and Konerko


IlliniSox4Life
11-28-2005, 03:51 AM
I've always wondered what exactly the "pressure" that the player's union puts on the top free agents to go for the big contracts is. Are they just calling him a lot and saying "hold out a little longer, don't accept less than $X"? Do they have incriminating photos of him? Did they kidnap his son?

Joking aside though, is this really that big of an issue, or is it easy for Paulie or whomever to just ignore them and do what he wants?

Banix12
11-28-2005, 04:03 AM
I've always wondered what exactly the "pressure" that the player's union puts on the top free agents to go for the big contracts is. Are they just calling him a lot and saying "hold out a little longer, don't accept less than $X"? Do they have incriminating photos of him? Did they kidnap his son?

Joking aside though, is this really that big of an issue, or is it easy for Paulie or whomever to just ignore them and do what he wants?

It can be a big issue. I believe Konerko has the right to accept any deal he wants to in all honesty, but since his contract can influence the contract negotiations of countless other Free Agents the Union would prefer he not take a deal below market value for a player with his skill equivilents.

I don't know if the Union itself exerts pressure on players but I think you could imagine if "Player A" took a contract well below market value (say $2-$3 million a year) and it ends up hurting the ability for "Player B" to negotiate. Player B would be pretty angry at Player A and any unrest in the union is usually not a good thing.

Steelrod
11-28-2005, 07:06 AM
It can be a big issue. I believe Konerko has the right to accept any deal he wants to in all honesty, but since his contract can influence the contract negotiations of countless other Free Agents the Union would prefer he not take a deal below market value for a player with his skill equivilents.

I don't know if the Union itself exerts pressure on players but I think you could imagine if "Player A" took a contract well below market value (say $2-$3 million a year) and it ends up hurting the ability for "Player B" to negotiate. Player B would be pretty angry at Player A and any unrest in the union is usually not a good thing.

Pressure is probably on the agent also, as he represents other players in the union. Plus agents must be certified by the union. Besides, who would want to butt horns with the strongest union in history. A union's arguement is to stand together for the benefit of all members, as others have done for you!
Sounds to me as an incredible amount of pressure!

Ol' No. 2
11-28-2005, 09:45 AM
Player: No, no, please don't make me sign this $70M contract!! I want to play for much less.

Union enforcer: Shuddap. When I leave, either your signature or your brains are going to be on this contract.

*****

soxfanatlanta
11-28-2005, 09:59 AM
Player: No, no, please don't make me sign this $70M contract!! I want to play for much less.

Union enforcer: Shuddap. When I leave, either your signature or your brains are going to be on this contract.

*****

:rolling:

Just beautiful. Could not have stated it any better.

Steelrod
11-28-2005, 11:25 AM
Player: No, no, please don't make me sign this $70M contract!! I want to play for much less.

Union enforcer: Shuddap. When I leave, either your signature or your brains are going to be on this contract.

*****
What a world we live in. Do you know what the difference between 60 and 70 million is? Nothing! Your great great grandchildren will never have to work with either amount. Your family is set forever. (unless it's the Pete Rose family) The key is quality of life for you. To work and play where you want to!:bandance: :bandance:
Bill Gates has lost about 35 billion in the last year and and half. I don't think he stays up nights worrying about it.

Flight #24
11-28-2005, 11:33 AM
I specifically recall comments by IIRC Mark McGwire that he was resisting players association pressure to sign with whoever offered the biggest $$$ because of the ripple down effect on both arbitration and other FA contracts. He resisted that and resigned for less with St Louis. No specific discusison of who & how, just that they were talking to him about his responsibility to other players to help continue to inflate salaries.

Not that it usually takes much pressure to get guys to jump to the biggest $$$, but I'm sure that union pressure can be hard to resist for a guy who might even be considering taking less to go somewhere, especially a younger guy.

D. TODD
11-28-2005, 11:39 AM
The union does have alot of input. Gordie Howe took tiny contracts, considering his skills, for years in hockey. He made tons more off of the ice with the owners help. The owners would use his contract to deny almost all substantial raises for other players. He was taken care of and saw no reason to asks for more, but in doing so he screwed his teammates and others throughout the league. If Konerko has a substantially higher offer on the table he better have a compelling reason for not accepting it. Returning to defend the World Championship seems pretty compelling to me.:D:

NorthSideSox72
11-28-2005, 12:20 PM
There are always exceptions - big and small. Our own Jermaine Dye did not take the best offer on the table, from what I recall. But he is not on the top of the scale. If you want an example of an elite player, look at Cal Ripken throughout his career. Even as the best at his position, he consistently took offers from Baltimore that were described as well below what he could have gotten elsewhere.

Unfortunately though, these are exceptions to the rule. Most players seem to take the best deal, unless the deals are so close together that it doesn't much matter.

Lip Man 1
11-28-2005, 12:26 PM
Steelrod:

The difference between 60 and 70 million dollars is ten million dollars, that's a lot of money for most people including players, don't you think?

And the reason Bill Gates isn't concerned about losing 35 million is because he's only worth a couple of billion dollars and is one of the richest people on the planet according to Forbes Magazine. It depends on how much your total value is.

There are also billionares like Carl Pohland the Twins owner, who was willing to contract his team for 180 million dollars even though he didn't need the money.

You can't say for sure what drives people in these situations. What is important to one may not mean squat to the other and the opposite is also true.

Lip

AaronRowandFan33
11-28-2005, 12:37 PM
Paul Konerko is not he first free agent ever.

He is arguably not even the most in demand free agent of his own class. I can't see what he does being a major influencing factor in anything long term.

MLB salaries have finally started to top out (Yankees excluded) and teams (like Texas) are starting to realize that you can't have $25 million dollar a year men (Yankees excluded) and still afford a winning team (Yankees are proof) unless you want to be in the red by millions of dollars each year (Yankees excluded).

kevin57
11-28-2005, 08:41 PM
This has been posted before, but I haven't seen it in a while and it bears repeating...and I get a strong feeling that Konerko and Landis will not overlook it. Namely, besides base salary, there is the "promotion income." I can't see Paulie getting nearly as much of that in LA or anywhere else compared to Chicago. If he resigns here, he'll have some many "gigs" he won't have time for baseball. :wink:

Someone more informed could perhaps cite a figure of Paulie's Chicago endorsement "advantage" and add that to the Club's salary. We'll see, then, if perhaps our $60M gets reasonably close to LAA's $70M (all hypothetical, of course)

Daver
11-28-2005, 08:55 PM
The pressure now is not what is once was, because the MLBPA, agents, and teams are learning to deal with the post Luxury Tax modus operandi. Now teams do not just look at the front end of a deal, the actual contract, but they look at the back end as well, how it might affect their revenuing sharing stake down the line, as all shared revenue is doled out at the commisioners discretion. The MLBPA is truly starting to learn what exactly they gave up in the last CBA, which was the ability to absolutely control the FA market, but the combination of the Luxury Tax, as well as the time limit on defferred contracts, have done away with a lot of their leverage in bargaining stance.

The next round of labor talks should prove to be interesting to say the least.

Mohoney
11-28-2005, 09:27 PM
What a world we live in. Do you know what the difference between 60 and 70 million is? Nothing! Your great great grandchildren will never have to work with either amount. Your family is set forever. (unless it's the Pete Rose family) The key is quality of life for you. To work and play where you want to!:bandance: :bandance:
Bill Gates has lost about 35 billion in the last year and and half. I don't think he stays up nights worrying about it.

I don't know, man. It's still a $10 MILLION dollar difference!

Just because it's an incomprehensible amount to us doesn't give us the right to act all high and mighty about it. What if somebody has investment plans, and that extra $10 million can seal the deal or break the deal? Can we really hold it against somebody if they take a better offer?

As for the Players' Union argument, you have to remember one thing. Most labor unions collectively bargain wages that are equal among most members, and this bargaining usually sets a prevailing wage. Very few unions have wage disparities among their members as drastic as unions for professional atheletes.

I don't know, maybe I'm totally off base. But if I was in a position where I'm coming off back-to-back 40 homer seasons, I'm DEFINITELY going to try and cash in. Then again, I would also want to go to the best place I could to win a ring. Two offers being equal, I'm going to go to the better team. However, if the better team's offer is WAY off money-wise, I'm going to have to leave and get paid.

NeverForget42
11-28-2005, 09:52 PM
[QUOTE=NorthSideSox72]There are always exceptions - big and small. Our own Jermaine Dye did not take the best offer on the table, from what I recall. [QUOTE]

i'm pretty sure we gave matt clement a higher offer than boston did, but he elected to go to boston at a lesser pay so that he would be more likely to win

thats one less ring for clement and one more for el duque

:redneck

StillMissOzzie
11-28-2005, 11:24 PM
There are always exceptions - big and small. Our own Jermaine Dye did not take the best offer on the table, from what I recall.
IIRC, Jermaine got a better offer only after he had accepted the White Sox offer. Showing some integrity, he stuck with his word to KW. I trust he is not sorry he made this decision.

SMO
:gulp:

NWSox
11-29-2005, 02:22 AM
I think the visibility of this issue increased dramatically because of the role of MLBPA in the failed ARod to Boston trade. The MLBPA was adamant that ARod not take a pay cut from an existing contract. I don't believe the MLBPA has nearly as much leverage with a free agent.

Steelrod
11-29-2005, 04:48 AM
Steelrod:

The difference between 60 and 70 million dollars is ten million dollars, that's a lot of money for most people including players, don't you think?

And the reason Bill Gates isn't concerned about losing 35 million is because he's only worth a couple of billion dollars and is one of the richest people on the planet according to Forbes Magazine. It depends on how much your total value is.

There are also billionares like Carl Pohland the Twins owner, who was willing to contract his team for 180 million dollars even though he didn't need the money.

You can't say for sure what drives people in these situations. What is important to one may not mean squat to the other and the opposite is also true.

Lip
Lost 35 Billion, not million! and he's still worth lots of billions!
Thats my point. After a point, more money has no impact on on your life, standard of living, or your families future.
Carl Pohlad would like to be out of baseball, but loves his city and will not sell to anyone who might move the team. However, he's tired of losing money! Then again, you probably think he's making lots of money 'cause he's an owner.

Paulwny
11-29-2005, 08:43 AM
This has been posted before, but I haven't seen it in a while and it bears repeating...and I get a strong feeling that Konerko and Landis will not overlook it. Namely, besides base salary, there is the "promotion income." I can't see Paulie getting nearly as much of that in LA or anywhere else compared to Chicago. If he resigns here, he'll have some many "gigs" he won't have time for baseball. :wink:

Someone more informed could perhaps cite a figure of Paulie's Chicago endorsement "advantage" and add that to the Club's salary. We'll see, then, if perhaps our $60M gets reasonably close to LAA's $70M (all hypothetical, of course)


Promotional income is dependant on the individual.Why have to do commercials to make up the money difference? PK may feel that time spent having to do endorsements is time away from his family. One of the reasons Manny wants out of Boston is the privacy issue for him and his family. Some players may not want the lime light outside of baseball . It's an individual preference, who really knows how PK feels about it ?

Steelrod
11-29-2005, 09:48 AM
Promotional income is dependant on the individual.Why have to do commercials to make up the money difference? PK may feel that time spent having to do endorsements is time away from his family. One of the reasons Manny wants out of Boston is the privacy issue for him and his family. Some players may not want the lime light outside of baseball . It's an individual preference, who really knows how PK feels about it ?

...or the White Sox or Chicago for that matter.

Chicken Dinner
11-29-2005, 11:32 AM
The latest:

The Orioles are said to be one of only three teams still in the bidding for Chicago White Sox slugger Paul Konerko. The White Sox and the Los Angeles Angels are the other teams still involved in the Konerko sweepstakes, industry sources said. According to one industry source, all three have made five-year offers, with the Orioles' being the most lucrative.
-- Baltimore Sun

The Angels remain in the hunt for free-agent slugger Paul Konerko and are believed to have bumped their initial four-year offer to the Chicago White Sox first baseman to five years and about $60 million. Konerko is also said to be very fond of Angel Manager Mike Scioscia and coaches Mickey Hatcher, Ron Roenicke and Alfredo Griffin, all of whom have ties to the Dodgers, the team that selected Konerko in the first round of the 1994 draft.
-- Los Angeles Times

In one of his first acts as a member of the White Sox, slugger Jim Thome placed a call over the weekend to free agent Paul Konerko to implore him to re-sign with the Sox. If Konerko signs elsewhere, the Sox would pursue other options they've already discussed. One could be to move right fielder Jermaine Dye to first base, thereby opening an outfield spot for the speedy No. 2 hitter manager Ozzie Guillen prefers.
-- Chicago Tribune

Lip Man 1
11-29-2005, 12:41 PM
Steelrod:

You're right as the historical facts have shown (most recently during the 94 labor impasse) Pohland and his buddies were making tons of money. In fact just last week 'Proud To Be Your Bud' himself issued a report which was noted on ESPN.com that "23 major league teams made money last year."

I'm surprised that you didn't make note of this at the time. So much, once again, for all those 'the owners are going broke' scenarios...LOL

Lip

Lip Man 1
11-29-2005, 12:43 PM
Chicken:

More and more I'm thinking it's going to come down to this.

Will the Sox bend their policy and give Konerko a 5th year on the contract?

If they do, I think he will re-sign. If they don't, well you better hope Lyle Overbey or someone like that is still available.

Lip

Frater Perdurabo
11-29-2005, 12:48 PM
Chicken:

More and more I'm thinking it's going to come down to this.

Will the Sox bend their policy and give Konerko a 5th year on the contract?

If they do, I think he will re-sign. If they don't, well you better hope Lyle Overbey or someone like that is still available.

Lip

Lip, how would you feel if Brian Giles were brought in to play right, with Thome splitting time at first with Jermaine Dye (until Thomas comes back healthy), and then when Frank comes back, moving Giles to center, Dye to right and Thome to first?

Ol' No. 2
11-29-2005, 01:13 PM
Lip, how would you feel if Brian Giles were brought in to play right, with Thome splitting time at first with Jermaine Dye (until Thomas comes back healthy), and then when Frank comes back, moving Giles to center, Dye to right and Thome to first?Woulon't it make a lot more sense to keep the Gold Glove outfielder in RF and put Giles at 1B?:?:

Lip Man 1
11-29-2005, 01:16 PM
To the best of my knowledge I have not seen, heard or read any interest on the Sox part, in Brian Giles. I think I saw that he's 34 and for an outfielder you have to wonder how long someone can keep running out there day after day after fly balls and line drives, it's not like he's playing first base remember.

I did see on ESPN.com where the Blue Jays have apparently zeroed in on him.

I just can't see your speculation taking place but again we'll see. Right now I also don't know if Frank will ever been truly healthy again.

Lip